Despite the star power of The Circle, the movie disappoints on so many levels. The story follows Mae Holland (Emma Watson) who gets the opportunity of a lifetime for a dream job at a massive internet company called The Circle — which resembles Facebook on steroids — collecting every piece of data the world has to offer, making it available for every user. Whatever data the company can’t collect from other sources, it collects on its own by distributing millions of tiny satellite cameras to users across the globe to be placed everywhere.

The movie explores many of the ethical questions regarding personal privacy, business occultism, and the ability of major corporations to aid society by catching “bad guys” on the one hand, while destroying the lives of innocent individuals on the other.

Perhaps it explorers too many of those ethical questions at once. So many, in fact, that the movie is unsuccessful at resolving any of them. Just as Mae decides to become “transparent,” as it is called in the film, by wearing a camera all the time and allowing the company to record her every move, conversation, and action, likewise this character’s arc becomes so transparent that any less-than-astute observer will be able to figure out the climactic twist before it happens.

The only lesson we are left with at the end is that the invasion of oir privacy will continue to get worse, there is no one to stop it, and there will always be someone at the top holding the keys, so they had better be “ethical,” whatever that means.

Every character in this film is gray. There are no real villains, there are no real heroes. All of the other high-powered stars like Tom Hanks and John Boyega could have easily been replaced by unknown actors.

Worst of all is that liberal Hollywood gets lost in this spider web by apparently deciding to trivialize the most serious of ethical issues our future faces, mostly by turning privacy on its head and making it the villain. It’s one thing to take down the CEO of a company who makes everyone else’s life transparent except his own. By doing so Hollywood still gets to “Stick it to the Man.” That’s right out of their playbook. But they get completely lost in all of the other issues and problems addressed throughout the film. I am guessing this is the case because most liberals are ethically stunted to begin with.

Perhaps we will have to wait for some indie filmmaker to tackle the real issues properly before we get a good film out of these topics.

Leahy’s rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies — including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission — to access Americans’ e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.

This is, of course, an example of the government going too far for security. And you know the old saying so often attributed to Ben Franklin, “Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.”

Also, I can’t stress more, here, that is the Democrats doing this. This is not a GOP effort.Read more

The EU’s latest round of mobile price regulation provides a golden opportunity to show how market competition produces much better results for consumers than government price regulation. Ironically, the European Parliament voted this week to lower mobile roaming charges by mid-2014 to levels that will still be much higher than America’s competitive wireless market prices are today.

Per New York Times reports, the EU mandated price for making a roaming mobile voice call will be reset from 35 cents a minute today to 19 cents a minute by mid-2014, and the price for receiving a roaming mobile voice call will be reset from 11 cents a minute today to 5 cents by mid-2014. Putting this in perspective, Recon Analytics’ research shows that Americans pay 4.9 cents a minute vs. 16.7 cents a minute for Europeans — ~70% less; and because of these dramatically lower American wireless prices, Americans consumers use more than twice as much wireless as Europeans, 875 minutes of use per month vs. 418 minutes for Europeans. Simply, the EU’s ~50% mandated price reductions will still have European consumers paying much more for mobile usage even if one incorrectly were to assume that competition won’t further lower the market price for American consumers like it has every year.Read more

Apparently Netflix is angling to become Silicon Valley’s king of corporate welfare. We learn from a New York Times economics column advocating for an Internet industrial policy that “Netflix is trying to build a coalition of businesses to make the case for… net neutrality.” And that the “online video powerhouse Netflix started a political action committee to complement a budding lobbying effort in support of the idea that all content must be allowed to travel through the Internet on equal terms” — translation: always at no cost to Netflix.

But Netflix isn’t in need of public assistance; it is America’s video subscription leader with 23 million subscribers. Netflix has $3.3b in annual revenues, $1.2b in gross profits, $800m in cash, a 34% return on equity, and a market valuation multiple over twice the market’s. And Netflix flexed its exceptional pricing power last year in raising its prices 60% without losing many subscribers.

Netflix’ net neutrality plan is a shameless Washington plea for corporate welfare via Government price regulation of privately-owned broadband networks so… Netflix’ uniquely voracious 33% usage of the Internet’s traffic peak does not cost Netflix anything! Greedily, Netflix is asserting that it somehow has an inalienable “right” to forever gorge on nearly a third of the Internet’s peak capacity without any obligation, responsibility or expectation to either responsibly use, or contribute to the cost of operating or investing in, the Internet infrastructure that they use more than any entity.Read more

Opponents urging the FCC to block the Verizon-Cable secondary market spectrum transaction are pushing the FCC into dangerous institutional territory, effectively goading it to: overreach its statutory authority; ignore FCC precedent, evidence, and facts; and game its own spectrum-screen process. The same FreePress radical fringe — that goaded the FCC to flout the D.C. Appeals Court decision and pass the Open Internet Order and Data-Roaming Order — are at it again.

The FreePress radical fringe who care not for the rule of law, are again goading the FCC to trump up some new public interest rationale and statutory theory to allow the FCC to transmogrify its limited public interest authority into unbounded authority that disregards the law, FCC precedent, or the facts. This radical manipulation of the process may be good for forwarding FreePress’ anti-business, Internet commons goals, but it is not good for the institution of the FCC, which is a creature of Congress and subject to the rule of law. And nor is it good for the American public.

The FreePress coalition appreciates that the FCC is in search of relevance in the broadband Internet era, and is preying on that uncertainty to goad the FCC to re-imagine its own legal authority by declaring broadband a Title II common carrier service and/or by interpreting their limited public interest authority boundlessly. If the FCC determines it needs new authority, it must seek it from Congress.Read more

Near hysterical opponents of broadband data usage caps need to breathe slowly, drop their magnifying glass, look up and take in the big world all around them. They are not just missing the forest for the trees, they are missing the leaves, stems, branches, trees, forest and sky, because they can’t take their magnifying glass off of the leaf with which they are myopically obsessed.

Broadband data usage caps are a very small, normal, and essential part of a healthy and economically-sustainable Internet ecosystem. Pricing is the central mechanism for any marketplace to balance supply and demand and to create economic incentives and disincentives for behavior that can drive costs. There is nothing wrong with pricing caps, tiers, and other pricing mechanisms that are used to manage networks, avoid network congestion, achieve a return on investment, manage a business model, differentiate a business, and/or earn a profit.

Does an average consumer get indignant when an all-you-can-eat buffet limits them from: piling food on a tray and not a plate; sharing their food with someone who hasn’t paid; or putting it in a bag to take home? No. Does an average consumer expect to be able to run their AC at max 24-7 during a heat wave when the system is at peak usage? No. Does an average consumer imagine that they can pay a flat rate for water, electricity, or gasoline, and then consume it without any usage limit or extra payment for high-usage? No. Most all American consumers understand the most basic economic principle, that if one uses more of a good or a service, one can expect to pay more for it. Only the small but very vocal group of Internet commons radicals that are currently indignant over broadband data usage caps imagine that broadband communications should somehow be a public unlimited free good.Read more

Consumer groups by definition, are supposed to be protecting consumers’ interests — not be pushing a special interest political agenda under the guise of the “public interest.” Let’s spotlight a recent and blatant hypocrisy whereby consumer groups near-completely ignored an instance of obvious widespread consumer harm (the FCC’s proposed fine of Google for obstructing its Street View wiretapping investigation), while in another contemporaneous issue, consumer groups gang-pummeled a non-issue to push a political Internet commons agenda (strongly objecting to Comcast’s new market offering where XBox usage does not apply to a user’s 250 Gig monthly data cap.)

Google Street View Wiretapping: Why is Google obstructing a Federal wiretapping investigation affecting the privacy of literally tens of millions of American households’ — not a consumer protection issue? How come consumer groups routinely and loudly call for FCC investigations of broadband companies’ legal marketplace actions, but are silent on the obvious obstruction of a Federal investigation into Google allegedly being involved in potentially the largest wiretapping and mass invasion of citizens’ privacy by a corporation in U.S. history? How is it in consumers’ interest for the government to not be able to determine if Google actually violated Federal law or not?Read more

Reading through The American Antitrust Institute’s white paper on Verizon-Cable, it is striking how little analysis is relevant to antitrust/market-competition and how it is basically a thinly-veiled tacit pitch for the DOJ and the FCC to pursue an aggressive industrial policy for the wireless industry.

The white paper presumes that because the DOJ blocked the AT&T/T-Mobile merger to preserve T-Mobile as a disruptive fourth wireless competitor, and because T-Mobile now claims it needs more spectrum, that the government should intervene somehow to effectively redirect the spectrum to T-Mobile and away from Verizon.

The huge flaw in the AAI’s analysis is its central presumption, which is contrary to longstanding spectrum auction law, that the government, not market forces, should allocate spectrum. The analysis ignores that the law of the land allocates spectrum via property rights and auctions enabling the spectrum to find the party that most economically values it and has the most economic incentive to put it to productive use. The AAI’s analysis appears biased against existing law in assuming that the only or primary reason that the largest wireless providers would want more spectrum would be to anti-competitively keep it from its smaller competitors, and not the obvious and real reason that they want to provide better, faster, more reliable mobile broadband service to more people in more of the country to make more money.Read more

Tomorrow, the House Judiciary Committee will hold their first hearing on E-PARASITE, a bill written by Hollywood lobbyists that could end the Internet as we know it. They’ve had their say, now it’s our turn.

Act now to protect Internet freedom by contacting the members of the House Judiciary Committee over the phone, and on Twitter and Facebook. Then, spread the word about Social Media #LobbyDay as we use the Internet to save the Internet.

What is PROTECT IP and E-PARASITE?

The PROTECT IP Act (S. 968) and the E-PARASITE Act (part of the “Stop Online Piracy Act”, H.R. 3261) would devastate job-creating American technology companies and social networking sites like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube in the name of protecting Hollywood copyrights. These bills would create a “Great Firewall of America” by embracing the same Internet censorship tactics as the world’s worst human rights abusers, including regimes like communist China, Iran, Syria, and Burma. A number of technology experts have concluded that these bills would mean “the end of the Internet as we know it.”

Only 51 votes are required for passage – which means only 4 Democrats are needed. There are 23 Democrat Senate seats up for reelection next year. A few of these folks aren’t running. The rest are – many in center or center-right states. Additionally, there are a few other Senators that should also be subject to Constitutional reason, and thusly contacted.Read more

Up to this point, the far left has won the war for branding on the issue of Net Neutrality. Even many conservatives and Republicans have been fooled by the “freedom of the Internet” lies that the left has spun with NN. But the Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli of The Commonwealth of Virginia means to change all that by launching a lawsuit to stop the government take over of the Internet.

First off this claim from the left that they only want to keep the Internet free and open is simply an outright lie. What they really want is two fold. One, they want all capitalist ventures removed from the Internet, and two, they want government to have 100% control over the Internet and they want the Internet treated sort of like a public utility.

The simple fact of the matter is that if government has 100% control over the Internet “free and open” is impossible. Even if this government control starts with no rules over content (and it won’t start that way), it won’t be long before the federal government starts mandating what is on the Internet, starts banning content that it doesn’t like, and starts laying out requirements for those websites lucky enough to be allowed to stay in operation.Read more

Last weekend Americans For Prosperity once again held its RightOnLine conference, this year in beautiful downtown Minneapolis, Minnesota. Consequently, the Atlantic Magazine decided to do a report on what went on at RightOnLine. Unfortunately, the whole thing was filled with opinions stated as fact, misconstructions of facts, and outright lies. Sadly, along with the rest of the Old Media, it seems as if the veracity of The Atlantic has taken a hit in this bad Obama economy.

The Atlantic assigned third string reporter Tina Dupuy to handle the RightOnLine retrospective, apparently, if her reports are any indication, because she was already in town to cover Netroots Nation. Netroots Nation is the far left conference made famous by the Daily Kos and its YearlyKos conference. YearlyKos started in 2006 and was later re-branded as Netroots Nation in 2008.

As always the RightOnLine event was held at the same time and in the same city as this year’s left-wing extravaganza. AFP does this because, in AFP President Tim Phillips’ words, “to see the true nature of our opponents.”

In order to ingratiate herself with the Nutrooters, at the top of her piece the Atlantic’s Dupuy went right for the left’s favorite boogey men: the dreaded Koch Brothers. Dupuy lamented, “Why is there a giant Koch-funded conservative gathering at the same time and in the same city as Netroots Nation, anyway?”Read more

Bill Clinton wants the government to “correct” what you say on the Internet, folks. Should the government listen to the former panderer-in-chief, we’ll go from Big Brother to Big Bubba on the ol’ Internet tubes.

Bubba is not happy with what he claims is the “misinformation” on the Internet and he wants the force of government to stop it all. Politico is reporting that Clinton makes the proposal in an upcoming CNBC interview saying, “It would be a legitimate thing to do.”

Free market advocates have for years been fighting the anti-capitalist left over government control of the Internet, a battle that has reached a temporary plateau when Obama’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) arbitrarily decided that it was in full control of the Internet and by fiat implemented the left’s long-sought net neutrality rules. This isn’t the only technology kerfuffle that the federal government is involved in, either.

Another techno-mess has been raging over a contract being considered by the Department of the Interior for its new email/messaging system using a cloud computing solution. The fight has been between Microsoft and Google and the results tends to prove that the government is as tech stupid as a Luddite on steroids. It tends to show that the government simply can’t be trusted with technology issues, whether net neutrality or otherwise.Read more

We’ve been writing about Obama’s attempt to take over control of the Internet for some time, now, and there is at last a bit of good news on that front. The House of Representatives has passed Congressional Resolution, H.J. Res. 37 aimed at preventing the FCC’s wild, unconstitutional powergrab.

Chief Deputy Whip Congressman Peter Roskam was in favor of this move and released a statement that said:

The FCC’s decision to prohibit America’s Internet providers from managing content on their own networks is a colossal mistake that will hurt job creation and innovation in one of our most vibrant industries. These new regulations are a solution in search of a problem. America’s Internet companies – from large enterprises to tiny garage start-ups – are examples of what can happen when government stays out of the way. The Internet is an engine of innovation and economic growth essential to America maintaining its qualitative edge. Net Neutrality rules will only stifle competition, hurt job creation and provide huge disincentives to innovate – so I urge the FCC to rescind these rules immediately.

Likewise, Congressman Adam Kinzinger voted yes on the resolution.Read more

Representative Marsha Blackburn (R, TN) has introduced a bill to preempt the December power grab by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski and she has made the bill bipartisan with the support of Democrat Dan Boren (Oklahoma).

Blackburn’s bill would place all rules governing the Internet in the purview of Congress and would take the issue out of the hands of the FCC. She is reporting that 60 members support her bill to halt the FCCs efforts to take control of the Internet without legislative action.Read more

With the recent midterm election and the resulting GOP tidal wave that is about to inundate Congress, many people have wondered aloud if net neutrality was dead? Well if FCC Chief Julius Genachowski has his way, net neutrality will be implemented by fiat when he has his agency simply change rules without involving congress at all.

The results of this election doesn’t even seem to be giving FCC Chairman Genachowski the slightest pause. Reports are that he is still working on a proposal for the FCC to take over the Internet and implement net neutrality anyway.

In The Hill, Genachowski is quoted saying that he fully intends to bring these rules to fruition.Read more

The politicians are at it again. They never cease to amaze for their constantly revolving attempts to take over complete control of the Internet and everything connected to it. This time, in the guise of safeguarding copyrighted material, Congressional Democrats intend to introduce into this zombie session of congress the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA).

COICA would give the Attorney General the power to shut down websites accused of illegally distributing copyrighted material by requiring Internet Service Providers to block such sites from its customers.

Certainly, as a capitalist, I am solidly for protections against copyright infringement, but, as is the case with most things that government does, this bill goes that much too far and offers a threat to freedom of expression on the Internet.Read more

Of those 95 Democrats, the number actually going to Congress in January will be… zero. There hasn’t been a wipe-out like this since the Redskins beat the Broncos 42-10 in the 1988 Super Bowl. Or since Atlantis was swept into the sea, or something.

As far as Internet policy is concerned, last night’s lesson for Republicans should be clear: Internet “neutrality” regulation is a loser with the public. It’s also a loser with businesses. It’s even a loser with the labor unions. That’s not a surprise. Union leaders can sometimes get realistic very quickly when confronted with a federal policy that will cost their members jobs.Read more

Recently Comm Daily (subscription required) reported that an FCC decision on net neutrality was unlikely before its January meeting. While uninteresting in itself the one remarkable line in the story had to be this quote from a senior FCC official:

“While they are busy handing out waffles and making posters, we are focused on creating jobs and protecting consumers.”

The FCC official was referring to Free Press, the group that has been relentlessly attacking the FCC and many Democrats for not jumping off the cliff for net neutrality.

As far as can be determined, this is the first time the FCC has ever called out Free Press for its buffoonery. And it’s about time, too. This may be a sign that the FCC has realized that the far left will never stop attacking them – Free Press’s business model depends on staying to the Left of whatever the FCC does — so it’s pointless to try to make them happy.

Who is Free Press? Taking a look at its Flickr photo stream shows why nobody, Republicans or Democrats, actually take Free Press seriously.Read more

Oh, Net Neutrality sure sounds like a great idea. Why, Net Neutrality supporters only want what’s best for “the people,” right? They only want the Internet to be a playground for all, free of the influence of evil corporations, and they want fees to be reasonable for the lowly masses, right? Turns out, not so much. Fair pricing and open access is the least of what Net Neutrality supporters really care about.

The latest wrinkle in the saga of Net Neutrality pretty much proves that Net Neutrality supporters really don’t care much about a free and open Internet as formulated in most people’s minds, nor do they care if corporations offer the Internet in a “fair” manner. No, what Net Neutrality supporters want is the end of ownership of intellectual property. What they really think is that anything that appears on the Internet should be wholly free of any capitalist ends whatever. That includes anything you create, by the way. They aren’t just against those evil corporations. They are against anyone making money on the Internet. That means you too.Read more

In an address to the United Nations on Thursday, Sept. 23, President Obama pledged to preserve a “free and open Internet” and would call out nations that censored content.

In a veiled reference to China and other nations that censor the Internet, Obama said that a civil society fosters open government. “Civil society is the conscience of our communities, and America will always extend our engagement abroad with citizens beyond the halls of government. And we will call out those who suppress ideas and serve as a voice for those who are voiceless.”

“We will promote new tools of communication so people are empowered to connect with one another and, in repressive societies, to do so with security,” Obama said. “We will support a free and open Internet, so individuals have the information to make up their own minds. And it is time to embrace and effectively monitor norms that advance the rights of civil society and guarantee its expansion within and across borders.”

Yet even as Obama stood giving high sounding words to a “free and open Internet” and scolding other nations that have oppressive controls on Internet access for their own citizens, Barack Obama’s own government has itself been quietly making plans to take over the Internet from private companies.Read more

If you are as worried as I am about the left’s effort to force ever larger amounts of big government onto our lives, then you should be looking into the issue of Net Neutrality. To that end a few times a week I’ll be posting some links and info about Net Neutrality to help you all get your feet wet on this important issue.

Here are just a few of the latest articles on Net Neutrality for your information:

Here is a draft copy of the net-neutrality proposal under development by House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (Calif.), according to an industry source. This version was under consideration as of the weekend. Two non-Hill sources said Monday afternoon they believe the bill will come on Monday or Tuesday.

Among the Washington power set’s favorite past-times is betting on an agency head’s exit date. After all, it’s usually a question of when — not if — he or she is going to burn out, throw up his or her hands in frustration, and get hounded out of the gig. The betting tables are especially hot after a long week for FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.Read more

It looks like House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman, (D-Calif) is so desperate to get a Net Neutrality bill out of the House before the recess that he was willing to strip the FCC authority from it this week. For months he Federal Communications Commission has been angling to take power over the Internet and left-wing Net Neutrality supporters were keen to let them but with the clock running down Chairman Waxman took a different path.

Tech Dose Daily reports that the bill would prohibit the FCC from reclassifying broadband under title II of the Communications Act. But there is a two-year sunset clause that would open up the FCC to reapply for this undue power at a later date.

Waxman apparently hopes to get this version of the bill passed out of committee so that the House can pass the bill before the recess. He hopes then that the Senate can tackle its part of the bill during the upcoming lame duck session.Read more

If you are as worried as I am about the left’s effort to force ever larger amounts of big government onto our lives, then you should be looking into the issue of Net Neutrality. To that end a few times a week I’ll be posting some links and info about Net Neutrality to help you all get your feet wet on this important issue.

Here are just a few of the latest articles on Net Neutrality for your information:

The estimable John Eggerton of Broadcasting & Cable reports: The (Federal Communications Commission-FCC) is issuing a public notice to “improve the FCC’s understanding of business broadband needs,” calling it the “next step” advancing the FCC’s small business broadband agenda.

Only one problem with this FCC assertion. They’re not supposed to have a small business broadband agenda. Or a broadband agenda. Or any sort of Internet agenda at all.Read more

If you are as worried as I am about the left’s effort to force ever larger amounts of big government onto our lives, then you should be looking into the issue of Net Neutrality. To that end a few times a week I’ll be posting some links and info about Net Neutrality to help you all get your feet wet on this important issue.

Here are just a few of the latest articles on Net Neutrality for your information:

WASHINGTON — AT&T filed a letter last week with the Federal Communications Commission claiming its plans for “paid prioritization” arrangements were supported by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the international body that develops and promotes Internet standards. In its letter, which attempted to conflate AT&T’s anti-consumer plans with accepted business-class network management practices, the company stated that paid prioritization “was fully contemplated by the IETF.”

Net neutrality. It sounds harmless enough, right? Wrong. Net neutrality is the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) misguided and misunderstood attempt to regulate the Internet. Net neutrality has taken many chameleon-like shades in the evolution to its current state, but its inherent dangers to the future of the Internet remain. Because of a recent Washington DC District Court decision concluding the FCC did not have the authority to regulate the Internet as it exists today, the FCC has embarked on a quest to reclassify broadband Internet service as it is today and classify it under an outdated monopoly era statute know as “Title II” of the Communications Act in which the FCC does have express authority over Title II services.

The FCC is concerned that broadband service providers will discriminate against content from competitors in order to more readily provide applications that would benefit them. Despite no evidence to this end, the FCC has been successful in generating the fear that without regulation, the Internet will change for the worse. The entire idea of introducing new regulations to preserve the already free and open nature of the Internet is paradoxical. Remember the old adage, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it?” The Internet is certainly not broken; in fact, it may be the “least broken” sector of our economy, with service providers investing billions of dollars into network infrastructure and innovations in the face of a recessive economy.Read more

If you are as worried as I am about the left’s effort to force ever larger amounts of big government onto our lives, then you should be looking into the issue of Net Neutrality. To that end a few times a week I’ll be posting some links and info about Net Neutrality to help you all get your feet wet on this important issue.

Here are just a few of the latest articles on Net Neutrality for your information:

The FCC is requesting more comment time in order to get past the midterm elections and put their decision phase into the lame duck Congressional session. It is likely that this calculation was made in order to allow the FCC to grab control of the Internet without much resistance from a less active and less powerful Congress.

As Ed Morrissey says of this move, “Well, isn’t that … convenient? Pushing a renewed power grab until after the midterms leaves Genachowski with a lame-duck Congress that may not feel particularly motivated to reassert its own authority as it did earlier with Genachowski. It also gives Genachowski a small but valuable window in which to push through potentially radioactive policies while Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid control Capitol Hill and hope a Republican House forgets about it in their haste to undo ObamaCare and conduct investigations into White House conduct.”

Folks, we need to contact those congressmen on the Internet Subcommittee in the House of Representatives. CLICK HERE to find out what congressmen are members of this committee.

We hope that you will post our articles and press releases. We also hope that our emailings will interest you enough to join the fight and write a few blog posts about Net Neutrality.

At stake is no less our freedom to blog not to mention the innovation of a free market.

Feel free to drop me a line at igcolonel@hotmail.com and do let me know if you are interested in helping to get the free market, conservative narrative on Net Neutrality out to your readers. This issue is vitally important for the freedom and success of our Internet.

This effort is in association with the United States Internet Industry Association (USIIA).

Admin

-By Cernan Cabriesy
Despite the star power of The Circle, the movie disappoints on so many levels. The story follows Mae Holland (Emma Watson) who gets the opportunity of a lifetime for a dream job at a massive internet company called The Circle -- which resembles Facebook on steroids -- collecting every piece of data the world ha